Why Are High FPS So Important for Gaming?

ForkSnorter on 28/05/2024 - 08:25

I've been researching gaming PCs for a few months to upgrade from PS4, and I noticed there is a big emphasis on fps, usually aiming to get above 60fps. Most of the games I've played on PS4 are 30fps, although maybe a few are 60fps. They all feel super-smooth, and I've never thought I needed higher fps. I also watch a lot of YouTube in 30fps, occasionally 60fps, and it also looks very smooth.

Maybe this is based on experience, but would you think 60fps is high enough for most games, or do you think you notice a big difference above 60fps?

Gaming

Comments

  • Sal in SA on 28/05/2024 - 08:36
    +68

    If you never played at 120hz+ you have very limited idea or benchmark to base what smooth is.

    • SpainKing on 30/05/2024 - 01:35
      +8

      Nah he's right, EA taught me the human eye can't see above 30hz/second

      • banana365 on 01/06/2024 - 12:34
        +1

        Hz/second? Your FPS is accelerating?!

    • [Deactivated] on 30/05/2024 - 13:15
      +10

      Exactly this - you don't know what you are missing until you do. Even going to a lower hz phone screen after using a high one is noticeable.

      Blur Busters is a great site that demonstrates smoothness difference across different FPS.

      UFO Test
      https://www.testufo.com/framerates#count=6&background=stars&…

      DOTA panning test
      https://www.testufo.com/framerates-versus#photo=dota2-bg.jpg…

      Consoles like PS4 are likely masking lower framerates with the use of motion blur, which blurs frames together to reduce the apparent differences between each frame at lower frame rates. It can do the job but it's like using an Instagram filter to make a picture look better,

      You tube content, TV and movies in general (standard 24 FPS) don't need higher FPS because they are not interactive like a game is and your view is curated by the director. Watching sports on the other hand, definitely benefits from a higher FPS to track a fast moving ball and players. Motion blur can be very noticeable in sports when a fast moving ball looks more like a streak.

      • nathanfsb on 30/05/2024 - 18:40
        +5

        key point to note if their screen is 60hz they won't be able to compare anything better than 60+ fps!

        • [Deactivated] on 30/05/2024 - 18:44

          ha yes good point i didn't think about that - the demo above will of course only show comparisons as fast as your set up allows

      • witheredcouch on 31/05/2024 - 14:27

        Depends on the person though. I have ended up running both my phone and laptop at 60hz rather than 120hz to save battery as I have done blind tests and honestly cannot tell the difference. Image and panel quality are extremely noticeable to me, refresh rate just really isn't.

      • Dubsys on 31/05/2024 - 22:45

        Damn, running this on my 360hz oled vs 30/60/144/155fps really shows the stark difference in movement smoothness

    • randomusername2017 on 28/05/2024 - 10:33
      +4

      You know they have VR now… you don't need to close your eyes whilst playing

      • smpantsonfire on 30/05/2024 - 05:37
        +2

        What an underrated comment

  • Sye on 28/05/2024 - 08:43
    +27

    Even OzBargain needs 120FPS to snag those bargains before anyone else.

    • tessel on 30/05/2024 - 11:59
      +2

      And that 1000/20 connection and threadripper AMD cpu.

      • BargainKen on 31/05/2024 - 10:49
        +2

        Nah need symmetric 1000/1000 to spam the threads with when you do/dont score.

  • DingoBilly on 28/05/2024 - 08:44
    +12

    If you want to be highly competitive, every advantage counts and higher fps can make the difference in making a shot or not.

    Otherwise, the benefit of going above 60fps quickly sees diminishing returns. I'm a lot like you in that I'm completely ok playing at 30fps and don't notice a big difference between 30 and 60, let alone 60+. Also come from consoles where sometimes 30fps wasn't even achievable, so maybe we just got used to it.

    I have a monitor and gaming setup that supports 144fps on pc and I honestly regret buying it. Was just expensive and didn't offer any noticeable difference for games at 144fps vs 60fps for me.

    For some people it's super important and they'll die on a hill that 60fps is barely playable and 30fps is unplayable, but don't buy into the hype if it doesn't make a difference for you and save the money.

    • lew380 on 29/05/2024 - 15:35
      +6

      A lot comes from the control inputs. A controller is coarse and FPS makes less of a difference. A mouse is a lot more precise and you will notice anything less than 60 can be unplayable. Can also depend on the game, some are twitchy and probably need 100+, other games are playable at 30FPS. Its a pandoras box for most console players, ignorance is bliss.

      An examppe for me is witcher 3, on my pc(m+kb) i really like 100FPS+ and stable. I heavily mod the game but often remove mods to achieve a good fps, even 60fps for me is not playable. Ive been replaying on my legion go and with the controller input and im sitting on 45 fps and its fine, no problems at all. A key metric is also stability, 1% lows. Stable 60 fps is better than an fps fluctuating between 60 and 100 imo.

    • yobeets on 01/06/2024 - 14:31

      Hey, don't want to sound like a jerk but are you absolutely sure you've enabled 144hz display in windows? The only people I've met who say that 144fps doesn't make a difference have had their display set to 60hz in settings.

  • AustriaBargain on 28/05/2024 - 09:07
    +6

    High frame rate is nice to have, but not necessary. Millions of PC gamers play at ~30fps every day.

    • lew380 on 29/05/2024 - 15:45
      +1

      Millions of pc gamers are also children or super casual gamers. Anyone gaming for some time over differnet genres will have a fine tuning for fps and the feel, it is subjective to some degree.

      • DENDEN321 on 30/05/2024 - 21:34

        true if i was to play at 30 fps its almost torture compared to 60+ also depends on the game some games feel alright at lower frame rates where as some games like csgo high fps is very noticeable

    • infinite on 30/05/2024 - 07:38
      -3

      That ratio is like a few million play under 60fps, while 100's of millions play above 60fps.

    • smalltime0 on 31/05/2024 - 22:48

      I think lowest FPS is what matters more as a measure.

  • Axelstrife on 28/05/2024 - 09:19
    +7

    A few reasons
    1. With more frames you can react quicker in fast paced games, without those extra frames you see the enemy later and react slower.
    2. The faster you move the more the less time there is for frames to apear on your screen so things when moving fast are not clear, more frames is more information = things are clearer. This is more so with a mouse that can move alot faster than a controller.
    3. This is a want but playing even single player games at 120/144hz feels so good.

    It's hard to explain in a way that makes someone go WOW! i need that, You really need to experiance it for yourself but it's definitely something where if you used it for a week then switched back to 60hz you would notice it far more than trying it one time for 2 minutes.

    Heres a good video explaining the difference.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV7EMnkTsYA

    • crfnx on 28/05/2024 - 13:31

      An example I use, not the best sell, but to help understand what sort of change can be expected with higher refresh rates. Make little circles with the mouse on your screen, If you are 60 FPS or less you probably can't tell which one of the cursors is the real one. The higher the refresh rate (excluding pixel response times) the smother the mouse will be and you will be more likely to tell which cursor is the real one.
      One day I hope to see a mouse cursor move so smooth it's like a real object moving on the screen.

      • crentist on 28/05/2024 - 14:51
        +2

        One day I hope to see a mouse cursor move so smooth it's like a real object moving on the screen.

        A lofty goal. I hope one day with years of dedication and effort that you will achieve your greatest dream

    • lunchbox99 on 30/05/2024 - 08:19
      -5

      Smoother display? yes. reaction time? gtfo.

      60Hz equates to 17ms between images, which is an order of magnitude less than your eye to hand reaction time. This would imply that halving the display refresh time to 8ms would not significantly reduce your total reaction time to that visual stimulus.

      This sound a lot like audiophile golden ears nonsense imho.

      EDIT: and this doesn’t even factor in display or network latency…

      • Axelstrife on 30/05/2024 - 08:30

        ok whatever you feel, not here to argue with people.

        • lunchbox99 on 30/05/2024 - 08:34
          -1

          It’s not what i feel - it’s the biology of the human nervous system.

          I note the nvidia analysis slows down and freezes the frame to claim “you see it earlier”, but what they don’t do is overlay that on the eye to hand reaction time.

          Does that freeze fame difference translate to a difference in your hand pressing the fire button? As far as I can tell we are talking 160ms vs 150ms overall reaction time in the best humans ever measured.

          Happy to be proven wrong if anyone has better information.

          • tephra on 30/05/2024 - 10:50
            +4

            @lunchbox99: if your reaction time is static, "seeing" something early still means you will react to it earlier.

            in a competitive environment, milliseconds matter.

            is it a bee's dick difference? sure, but faster is still faster…

            • lunchbox99 on 30/05/2024 - 12:59

              @tephra: I'm suggesting that people who claim 10ms matters are likely full of it. Open the stopwatch on your phone - double tap as fast as you can. Lowest I got was 0.07 which is 70msec. 7x this difference

              I note the nvidia FPS vs KD ratio graph - maybe all that proves is that good gamers like nicer gear… better monitor, better GPU etc

          • snep on 30/05/2024 - 10:51
            +6

            @lunchbox99:

            This would imply that halving the display refresh time to 8ms would not significantly reduce your total reaction time to that visual stimulus.

            If we're considering whether you can gain a competitive advantage, it's less relevant to consider your total reaction time to visual stimulus, but rather the difference between your reaction time and everyone else's. To dismiss a 10ms advantage because in absolute terms it is much smaller than 150ms is to miss the point - everyone has to deal with their reaction time, some amount of network latency etc.

            It's a bit like saying a running shoe that gives you a 1km/h advantage is irrelevant, because runners in your group can only average 20km/h anyway - and 1km/h is much smaller than 20km/h, right? But even small advantages in an absolute sense can give you enough of an advantage over the mean to be considered unfair.

      • trapper on 30/05/2024 - 13:19
        +1

        60Hz equates to 17ms between images, which is an order of magnitude less than your eye to hand reaction time.

        So even 10fps is still much faster than your reaction time, right?

        So should be easily playable? lol

        • lunchbox99 on 30/05/2024 - 17:12

          First, I said higher fps gives you a smoother display which makes it nicer to play regardless.

          Secondly 10fps would add 100ms to your 150ms reaction time, which is not insignificant.

      • yamborghini on 31/05/2024 - 03:03
        -1

        Clearly you've never played any game competitively in your life. Reaction time requires the moving object to be on the screen before you can react. For example if you're holding a close off angle with a pistol you have a few frames to track your opponents head to land the shot. When you 'react' to a moving target your don't react to a static image, but of a few frames put together so you know the speed and the trajectory of your target so you can catch your mouse up to the fast target. Best example of this is the xanteres peek, if you're going against that you need to have every frame possible to react.

        10ms is gigantic for reation time. Just because you can't perceive it doesn't the game won't. You need to remember its your reaction vs theirs and its not about the % of reaction time. let's say reaction time is equal, you win 50% of the battles, if you always react 10ms later you always lose. Naturally there is a variation in reaction time but if your standard deviation of reaction is always 10ms more you will always lose more than you win. FPS gaming reaction time is 0.15 to 0.18 for anyone good at a game, this means that if your reaction time falls between this set of variables but you need to add 10ms on you'd be at a massive disadvantage. Compound this over thousands and thousands of engagements and you'll be a pretty average player.

  • jugsy on 28/05/2024 - 09:45
    +14

    Low fps like …………..,…………….,…………….,…………….,
    High fps like …….,……,…….,……..,…….,……..,……..,……,

    • montorola on 28/05/2024 - 12:55
      +6

      Lol, reminds me of cs

      —————noobs-below-this-line—————

  • Mulga Bill on 28/05/2024 - 09:59
    +7

    If you play online shooters then I can see the argument for high FPS and even high mouse DPI…but if you are like me and like watching the barley grow on FS22 a high FPS is not so important…

    • smalltime0 on 29/05/2024 - 10:34
      +2

      Wow fancy not making silage.
      If you had more FPS you'd get better returns on your fields.

  • Bignudge on 28/05/2024 - 10:21
    +4

    I never really believed in high FPS until I got a 144hz monitor.

    Back then I used to care about having the best graphics… cranking up all the textures, shadows, reflections, etc. (Even keeping it that way if it averages ~45 FPS).

    The day I got the 144hz monitor, I rather play on low settings to get the full 144FPS.

    Even just scrolling around on a web browser feels quick, snappy and premium.

    [If you have a new "higher" end phone you can test it. Just turn on the super battery saver mode and you'll see how choppy it is just scrolling around on the home screen]

    • freefall101 on 28/05/2024 - 11:03
      +4

      I made the mistake of getting an android phone to play with that had a 120hz oled screen. Picking up my iPhone felt like going back to 1996 after that, my next iPhone is going to have to be a Pro one.

      My plan this year is to move everything to 120hz, TV (which I game on), desktop and laptop. Gunna be good.

    • surg3on on 30/05/2024 - 10:10
      +3

      Just a contrasting viewpoint. I also got a 120Hz monitor and frankly the best feature was the Gsync/Freesync. I simply dont notice the difference between ~70FPS and 120FPS

      • smalltime0 on 02/06/2024 - 10:03
        -1

        NVidia's Gsync was a con, AMD openly stated that Freesync is something that existed in the Display port VESA standard. Any display that properly implemented the full Display Port 1.2 standard should have supported it anyway. Freesync is an assurance of that, and as such AMD doesn't charge any fee on it to monitor manufacturers.

  • Bruceflix on 28/05/2024 - 10:44
    +1

    Single player games 60fps and all the eye candy turned on. Multiplayer, gfx settings low and highest possible fps.

  • 7ekn00 on 28/05/2024 - 10:58
    -1

    Depends on the game, not much point > 60FPS for single player games!

    But shooters mainly in competitive / coop / online configs can benefit from response times, reacts, etc …

    Even online games like WoW are quite pointless over 60FPS (cause the ping to the server kills your response far more than monitor FPS) …

    • infinite on 30/05/2024 - 07:42
      +1

      Most singleplayer games (like sports games, ARPG's, etc….) also look unplayable now under 60fps.

      100fps is the common standard now and it looks and feels like gaming 20 years ago to drop down to console levels of FPS.

  • ginormousgiraffe on 28/05/2024 - 11:10

    It's just a measure of how good of a machine you have. You don't necessarily need to run it at 150fps but if your machine can run it that high you could play on max settings or at 4k to find the balance of what works for you.

    • CrispyChrispy on 28/05/2024 - 11:15

      It's just a measure of how good of a machine you have.

      And to an extent the refresh rate of your monitor too.

      • AustriaBargain on 28/05/2024 - 12:56
        +2

        The smoother motion of the mouse cursor and webpage scrolling is a nice luxury to have.

  • AustriaBargain on 28/05/2024 - 11:50
    +2

    I used an iPad Pro with ProMotion (120hz) for almost six years now and just bought the new iPad Air M2 with a standard 60hz display, and yeah you can notice the difference but you get used to it very quickly. Higher than 60hz is nice to have but if it would cost you hundreds of dollars more to get and experience and you'd rather keep those hundreds of dollars, I say 60hz is enough.

    • ChickenAdobo on 30/05/2024 - 17:40

      144hz 1080p portable monitor are now cheap these day ranging from $100 -$150 bucks. If you are on the Apple ecosystem, there is a big premium price tag for high refresh displays.

      • AustriaBargain on 30/05/2024 - 18:28

        Worth the premium if you use them a lot. Same with Android phones, and PC laptops. If you practically live through your devices, like a lot of us here, then it's worth it.

  • jv on 28/05/2024 - 13:27
    +2

    Have you ever tried Minesweeper at 120fps ?

  • CascadeHush on 28/05/2024 - 14:24

    I my experience it matters a lot less if you are playing on a TV and sitting more than 1 meter away. It also matters a lot less on single player action adventure type games.

    Mostly people are worried about this in shooter games. Unless you are very high rank, it's unlikely to help you win matches, but it is visually noticable. For me anything over 90 is really nice and anything below about 70 is noticablably bad. FPS is most relevant when you are turning the camera a lot like taking a sharp corner in a racing game or whiping around in an FPS.

    The biggest improvement in gaming in the last decade is actually variable frame rate monitors (freesync, etc); Being able to target a frame rate but have the monitor adjust on the fly without screen tearing or the need to use vertical sync. OTOH a well tuned PS5 game at a solid 4k 60 FPS is a beautiful thing and no need to spend an hour with graphics settings, just set it to performance mode.

    As a concrete example, I'd rather play Forza Horizon 5 (PC) at my desk my 1080p freesync monitor where I get anything between 65 and 90 FPS depending on how much is going on graphically (particle effects (like dust) and environmental destruction slow things down a lot). I could run it at 144FPS and the game would look like garbage so I'll take the lower frame rate for a much, much better looking game). I spent an evening trying to get a consistent 4k 60 FPS on my TV, for which I needed frame generation but it looked decent and the frame rate didn't bother me too much. But my TV doesn't support freesync, and so when the frame rate inevitably dipped it did start to look pretty bad and the deficiencies of frame generation only made that worse. I just wasn't able to find a setting that looked good across the whole game whilst giving me a consistent 60 FPS.

    The closest thing I can compare that to on the PS5 is Grid Legends which looks fantastic and performs flawlessly out of the box in 4k 60fps with me sitting about a metre away from the TV. That's the the advantage of a console. And that brings us back (finally to your original comment about 30 fps games looking great on the PS4. Having a PS5 has given me the advantage of replaying some older games with the PS4 Pro enhancement which usually gives you a choice between 4k 30 FPS and 1080p 60 FPS and the higher frame rate is always better. But regardless, it's more about how the game is tuned for the hardware and saying a PS4 game looks good at 30FPS is down to that. I recently hooked up my PS2 and have been playing Need for Speed Hot Pursuit 2 and it looks perfectly smooth to me, much better than the recently NFS games on PS5 which are a jittery mess.

    I'll also mention that FPS games on a PC monitor below 60fps and with less than 100 degree field of view make me feel physically ill.

    Anway, all that to say that there is a big differnce between the out of the box experience of a console with a well made game and the drama of having a PC for the sake of better performance but at the cost of inconsistency and having to tune a game yourself. Unless you buy very expensive hardward and can just max everything out, I guess.

  • bazingaa on 28/05/2024 - 15:05
    +2

    doesn't matter unless you enjoy. I will happily play Super Mario bros on NES or Age of Empires on PC than some high FPS games.

    • montorola on 28/05/2024 - 18:25
      +2

      WOLOLOOOOOOO

    • OzBarAnon on 30/05/2024 - 11:19
      +2

      The original 2 AoE games are sprite-based in terms of animation, so more FPS wouldn't matter as the animations don't have the frames anyway. The DE versions on the other hand would have smoother motions with higher FPS

      • bazingaa on 30/05/2024 - 12:17

        ah never knew that, I though most sprite-based games are DOS games and early console games.
        I have a workstation with 13900K + RTX3090 + 155Hz &165 Hz monitors, but I mostly played AoE 2 DE and AoE4, some Doom Eternal, RTX versions of Doom, Quake etc. These days no gaming at all. Yesterday played minesweeper from JV's link lol

    • smartazz104 on 30/05/2024 - 14:39

      Many of those games ran at 60fps (well 50 for us I guess).

  • hasher22 on 28/05/2024 - 15:25

    Once you got 144hz (go minimum 120hz), you'll never want to go back to 60hz again. Even if you don't play FPS's, minimum 120hz is the way to go.

    I am on 165hz atm from settings and I went to my mates house and he has 60hz and it felt so…. jarring…..

  • ozbs25 on 28/05/2024 - 17:36
    +3

    Bit of an ad for NVIDIA but they do a good job of showing some of the differences between different FPS in Esports (in particular First Person Shooters) here. I don't know how much of it is true but it can give you a bit of an idea.

  • OBEY YOUR MASTERS on 29/05/2024 - 08:12

    Frames win games bro

  • Kayrhcp on 29/05/2024 - 08:41

    If you play games online and are competitive, 120fps+ is really helpful.

    If you’re playing games by yourself, just enjoy 60fps and nothing more.

    30fps is stuttery though and wouldn’t recommend

    • CrispyChrispy on 29/05/2024 - 19:50

      30fps is stuttery

      'cinematic' is probably the better term to use… lol

      Low fps doesn't always mean stutter, however

      • Kayrhcp on 31/05/2024 - 09:02

        It’s not cinematic though. Unless you use motion blur.

  • Soundwave on 29/05/2024 - 09:15

    Console games are optimised to run at a certain FPS at a certain resolution. PC gaming has a lot of variables. I personally find games running at 60FPS on PC compared to console is a lot less smoother. Depending on the game 90+FPS makes the games feel smooth and fluent for me. I don't see a point in these new 240Hz monitors though. I won't see or feel the difference but I'm not a pro player or have amazing reflexes. I use a 42" C2 OLED TV as my gaming monitor which is 120Hz max. So whatever FPS my GPU can pop out, I'll be capped at 120FPS.

  • A-mak on 29/05/2024 - 14:11
    +1

    The FPS goal should be either a multiplication or a division of the Hertz your monitor runs at. This is to avoid things like ghosting/screen tearing.

    There is no point to having high fps if your monitor is only 60hz.

    Having said that, there are newer forms of vsync that are variable like gsync or freesync so it is less of an issue nowadays.

    Most people can't tell the difference with above 120fps/120hz, I personally notice not much if any difference. However with better fps it generally means your rig can handle the game better in general and bump up those 1% lows or avoid micro-stutters (which are noticeable)

    • gmatht on 31/05/2024 - 15:42

      … or just use FreeSync/Gsync.

  • Powershopz on 29/05/2024 - 22:08

    It depends on what you're playing.

    For any non FPS game e.g. MOBAS, MMORPG etc you don't need a crazy high display rate monitor to be super competitive. It's a nice to have and makes for a better player experience but isn't going to have that much of an impact in your performance.

    For FPS games it's more critical and I'd generally recommend aiming for at least 120Hz.

    I personally play non-FPS games at 1440p / 165 Hz and it's delightful.

  • Parentheses on 29/05/2024 - 23:44
    -1

    It's an improvement, but honestly I feel it's more of a familiarity level of 'standard' than it is something people actively enjoy at the time they are using it over and above what they would otherwise be looking at.

    Like back in the day I could throw in a VHS in a CRT TV and it was fine, but now I think I would near-vomit to have to live with that lack of quality. DVDs came out and for a brief time they looked AWESOME, then they settled in and they looked normal. Now their 480p looks like garbage.

    I have a 144Hz monitor and routinely game at 144fps with gSync on a 4k monitor, and yeah, the day I got it holy CRAP the upgrade from 1080p at 60FPS was incredible. Now? It's just normal. 1080p/60fps looks like crap to me, but I don't feel the wow factor of 4k/144fps anymore. I am currently considering an HDR/OLED monitor as my next upgrade, but I don't anticipate it being more than a temporary buzz of awesomeness before I get used to it and it fades away.

    I expect 4k/144fps will look terrible when I later get used to 32k/1000fps or something.

    • kaleidoscope on 30/05/2024 - 09:29

      I found the windows hdr experience is beyond crap. Everything looks washed out when using non hdr content. (Yes I did display and windows calibration for hdr). Either I'm doing something terribly wrong or my hardware is crap. (4070 / Dell 2k hdr gaming monitor 27")

  • Trysaeder on 30/05/2024 - 01:35
    +1

    As the screen occupies more of your field of view, unsmooth movement becomes more noticeable. A 27" monitor at 70cm has the same field of view as a 108" TV at 280cm, so most people's TVs will have a relatively lower field of view. Same goes for smaller screens like phones and the Switch.

    Higher FPS also reduces input delay, which makes the game feel more responsive and immersive. It's not 1:1 but going from 60 to 120 fps can make the game feel much nicer to play.

    Joysticks also keep movements smoother overall. It's actually hard to move your mouse at a constant speed, and those little deviations (or lack thereof) will expose low framerates.

    For games where I'm controlling a 3d camera, I turn settings down until I get at least 100fps because I prioritise the benefits of that over everything it costs.

  • 900dollaridoos on 30/05/2024 - 08:08

    My time to shine.
    I dorked out heavily on Fortnite back in the day (top 0.0002% for a couple years).
    It got to the point where I could feel if the fps had dropped due to monitor resets etc.

    It seemed ridiculous given google saying we only see at 60hz with our eyes, but when I got someone to do a blind test (changing settings without me seeing) I was able to tell when it dropped below 144hz very easily. At 60hz I even measurably made more mistakes.

    Caveat, I struggled to tell much between 144 and 240hz.

    • trapper on 30/05/2024 - 13:36
      +1

      It seemed ridiculous given google saying we only see at 60hz with our eyes

      Our eyes don't function in the same way as digital displays though. When your monitor shows a frame, that frame remains completely static until the next frame is rendered.

      Our brain and eyes perceive motion differently. They don't capture discrete snapshots like a camera. Instead, they are designed to expect and process continuous motion. More fps more closely approximate the continuous motion that our brain expects from the real world.

    • Odin on 01/06/2024 - 12:33

      It's nonsense. Human eyes can perceive differences up to 300hz.

      Now, whether it actually matters is another thing. There's a difference between being able to tell and being bothered by it during normal experience

  • beefmaster on 30/05/2024 - 10:15

    Probably cannot tell the difference if you are old and eye sight deteriorate.

  • stedmaster on 30/05/2024 - 10:33

    There's a lot of examples online, you can run https://www.testufo.com/ That will go up to your screens cap.

    Run that on the highest refresh rate screen you can find on demo at PLE.

    You can watch Optimum on Youtube with his videos on various screens, that was is 540hz, he provides a lot of detail that you wouldn't usually get, its a about as much as you can get without actually trying it yourself.

    If you want to play shooters competitively these days, even with console you want the fastest refresh rate and response time you can afford. But even normal games and just using windows is so much nicer with high response and framerate.

    If you really like that, you can look into peripheral response times too, like using short atuation optical switches or higher polling rate mice

  • centrelink on 30/05/2024 - 11:30

    What is the fps of real life?

    • trapper on 30/05/2024 - 13:39
      +1

      In real life, there are no frames; everything is continuous.

  • rumblytangara on 30/05/2024 - 11:40
    -1

    Keep in mind here that whilst there might be some 'real' benefit, there is also going to be a massive amount of hyperbole.

    Look at previous market trends for 'gamers'- RGB on everything, they've bought into 1000Hz polling rates, speshul shorter travel keyboard switches, 10K or whatever DPI mouse sensors.

    Higher frame rates are definitely nice, up to a point. I can easily notice 30fps vs 60fps, and I am shite at FPS. But gear doesn't make me any better.

    At the extreme pointy end of skill, some of this stuff might matter.. a bit (well, not the RBG), but the hyperbole is real.

  • ChunkyToast on 30/05/2024 - 11:58

    Just test it out yourself and you will see!
    Does make a big difference for me (BF2042, Halo, CS, COD, xDefiant)

    Play at 30 FPS (lol), then 60 FPS and then 120 FPS+ (I do have 165 FPS monitor but find not much better post around +140 fps)

  • 2025 on 30/05/2024 - 13:45

    Why Are High FPS So Important for Gaming?

    Bragging rights?

    For me it depends on the game. Some I’m happy to max out everything and live at 40fps. Others not so much. It varies.

    I do find FPS extremely important in VR, less so when looking at a panel.

    But there is a definitely a noticeable difference with a high refresh rate screen and stepping up. And it is a positive change. Your PS4 will feel slow and sluggish when you experience the difference.

    Even mundane web browsing and excel kinda stuff sees an improvement, scrolling is smoother, eg it’s easier to read things while scrolling.

  • Bid Sniper on 30/05/2024 - 14:47
    +1

    You need to see a proper 4K 120hz+ setup in person, difference is night and day. 60hz is 30hz in comparison, 30hz is Virtual Hylide on Saturn level of unplayable for me (seconds per frame).

    Same with HDR vs non HDR, particularly on a QLED panel.

    In terms of important, it isn't, its a videogame. However high FPS makes motion look more realistic and HDR makes lights look like real lights. High FPS, action games look real, particurally racing games and things like water. HDR games like Cyberpunk, the Neon lights look like you're starting at neon light IRL. In Elden ring can almost fell warmth of sun and fire.

    • imurgod on 30/05/2024 - 16:14

      Well put

  • OldSchoolHarry on 30/05/2024 - 16:21

    Depends on the games, fast paced games are definitely more enjoyable at higher than 60Hz. For example: once you play Rocket League at 240Hz, going back to 60Hz is painful.
    Also console vs PC and TV vs gaming monitor vastly improves input lag which can be an important factor depending on the screen model and the games you want to play.

  • justworld on 30/05/2024 - 16:55

    If you are playing adventure/3rd person games then 60fps suffices. Shooting games you want at least 100 if not 120 or 144fps (whatever your monitor can handle). It's pretty simple - the higher the fps, the higher the refresh rate on screen, so the faster your eyes and brain can take in information. At 30fps you are getting new info every 0.033 seconds; at 144fps you are getting new info every 0.007 seconds - that's 4-5 times faster, and thus 4-5 times more data your brain is getting. Getting data faster doesn't just mean you can react more quickly (and change minor inputs more quickly) - it also trains you to more quickly engage with that information and think faster.

    Games like CS:GO are less about aim (which is dependent on fps anyway) and more about how quickly you can register that the first enemy is dead and then anticipate/swap your crosshair onto the second enemy. It's a game of trades.

    Finally, with a bit of experience it's very easy to tell the difference between 24fps, 30fps, 40fps, 60fps, 80fps, 99fps, 120fps and 144fps - the eye can easily distinguish.

  • ChickenAdobo on 30/05/2024 - 17:28
    +1

    Welcome to the club. What you need is a 1080p 144hz monitor and grab current gen midrange cards. You will feel a MASSIVE jump from a pathetic ps4.

  • nigel deborah on 30/05/2024 - 18:09
    +1

    Try 100, 120 hz (even on an adventure type game) and you'll never go back. It's like crack.

    I'd almost say don't do it. If you never know what you're missing, you can live in blissful ignorance and save big $$$

    • OBEY YOUR MASTERS on 30/05/2024 - 21:24
      +2

      It's not placebo. High FPS is for competitive eSports games. The difference is night and day.

    • yamborghini on 31/05/2024 - 03:05
      +3

      Tell me you're a boomer without telling me you're a boomer.

    • johnno07 on 01/06/2024 - 04:07

      How can you simultaneously advocate that 24fps for games is fine (which is about what the N64 was capable of) but also have a huge sook about "retro" art styles used in modern games?

      Goodness gracious.

  • quanticism on 31/05/2024 - 00:21
    +2

    An easy test to see if you're on 60Hz or 144Hz is to just wave your cursor around and look at how many frames you can see. I used to think that macOS was laggy garbage until I realized that my feeling of lag went away when I upgraded my HDMI dongle to one that supported 144Hz. Now I think that macOS is normal garbage.

  • yamborghini on 31/05/2024 - 03:26

    Hey so played video games competitively in my teenage years. Still play a bit today. I'll give you my 2 cents.

    They major thing that most people overlook is that we don't only play video games with our eyes, we use our ears and our hands to play the game as well. Audio stimuli reaches the brain a lot faster that visual stimuli and that is affected by FPS (Search inhumane reactions Hiko, his reaction was because the noise scared him). The other thing is that games at a higher FPS feel a lot smoother for your hand since the your motor tactile response is much faster than your eyes.

    60 fps is for a good experience with single player games. I would go 120hz or 144hz at a minimum because the smoothness is much nicer depending on your mouse control ability. This would be fine for a casual game, nothing serious, something you pay for fun. 30 fps is fine for anything that isn't FPS or fast paced that requires some reaction time, think story rich adventure style games, puzzle games.

    If you're ever going to play a competitive shooter you definitely need to go high FPS and High refresh rate monitor. The difference is night and day, especially when you actually have good control of your mouse. The smoothness is really important so that the frames don't drop to a perceivable level because it can change the speed of your mouse slightly. This really screws with your recoil control. The higher the FPS and refresh, the better your reaction time.

    • ForkSnorter on 31/05/2024 - 07:28
      -1

      If you're ever going to play a competitive shooter you definitely need to go high FPS and High refresh rate monitor. The difference is night and day, especially when you actually have good control of your mouse.

      Why would you use a mouse instead of a game controller for these games? Does a mouse give you more control?

      • Caped Baldy on 31/05/2024 - 09:41
        +2

        Does a mouse give you more control?

        Pretty much. It's easier to do fast twitch movements and flicks with a mouse than a joystick. You also lose a bit of time when you have to recentre the joystick.

        If you do single player and are comfortable with controllers just play with a controller.

      • CrispyChrispy on 31/05/2024 - 12:43
        +1

        There's a reason there's such heavy aim-assist on consoles for the majority of shooters out there, ie. Apex Legends.

      • DangerNoodle on 01/06/2024 - 09:17

        Mouse is more linear control and consistent whereas controller analogue sticks tend to have acceleration curves for movements.

        Also, have you gone into a shop that has display models with different refresh rates? Some of the more recent studies seem to indicate that the reason why some people claim they can't see more than 30/60fps is because not everyone's eyes have developed to notice the difference. Mine seems to be limited to around 120fps as I can notice the difference between 90fps and 120fps (can notice smoothness but I can't respond as fast) but beyond that I don't perceive as much of a difference. Whereas I've got a friend with a 360hz monitor who seems to be able to perceive up to 240fps.

        • OBEY YOUR MASTERS on 03/06/2024 - 13:24

          I think the time when you notice it the most is when you are moving the mouse the most. The gaps in between frames are large and it doesnt feel smooth at all. Even at 240hz.

          If you are just following the animations of enemy characters then it is less noticeable. More frames make it easier to predict their next movements but the higher fps you go you get diminishing returns.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join